September 30, 2018
Revised and updated September 16, 2019


Christine Blasey Ford takes the oath. Image: Getty Images.

The word of the moment is “credible.”[1] Immediately following the Senate hearings on September 27, 2018, The New York Times published several online editorials as to why we should “believe” Christine Ford and not Brett Kavanaugh. The lead editorial is still posted there: “Why Brett Kavanaugh Wasn’t Believable and Why Christine Blasey Ford Was.”[2] This was echoed on the front-page of the print version on September 28, showing two huge photos side by side: a stoic-looking Ford with her right hand raised, next to an angry Kavanaugh who is meant to appear unhinged. As The Times notes:

What a study in contrasts: Where Christine Blasey Ford was calm and dignified, Brett Kavanaugh was volatile and belligerent; where she was eager to respond fully to every questioner, and kept worrying whether she was being “helpful” enough, he was openly contemptuous of several senators; most important, where she was credible and unshakable at every point in her testimony, he was at some points evasive, and some of his answers strained credulity.

Who cares whether Ford’s allegations of attempted rape were true? As everyone had been told, it was the “optics” that would be the deciding factor.

CNBC tells us Ford was credible because she was vulnerable, at times she “appeared visibly traumatized,” and she made direct eye contact, “showing that she had nothing to hide.”[3] And, by the way, she was genuine. The Boston Globe reports that “Christine Blasey Ford Was More Credible.” This is because Kavanaugh’s defense “doesn’t ring true.” Plus, Ford “doesn’t seem like a partisan schemer.”[4] Then we hear from Slate that Ford was credible because she was trustworthy, she was “definitive,” and because she was not really certain about all the answers she gave.[5] In other words, although she was unclear about many details and could not substantiate her allegations with witness testimony or real data about the alleged event, this somehow acted to her advantage. She was credible because, well, she was credible. Even President Trump agreed.[6]

Brett Kavanaugh testifies. Image: Associated Press.

By contrast, Kavanaugh was considered not credible, as supported by the various published images of him looking vicious, indignant, and, um, uncredible. He was “angry,” he went “full partisan,” and he lost it in a “toddler-worthy temper tantrum.” He even resorted to asserting his virginity in high school and for some years after. Not credible, sez Trevor Noah. Kavanaugh is “trying way too hard.”[7] A team of pundits at MSNBC broke it down in the video “Credibility vs. Emotion: Blasey Ford & Brett Kavanaugh’s Divergent Testimonies.”[8]

We were told to “believe” Ford and not Kavanaugh by virtually all mainstream outlets, including the controlled opposition “alternative” media.[9]  The main exception to this snow job is Fox News, which clings to the antiquated idea that the accused may be telling the truth. Online sources, however, tell a different story. Is Ford credible? I don’t think so, and neither do many others who watched her performance.[10]


The accuser

As Fellowship of the Minds points out, Christine Blasey Ford is a 52-year-old professional with a BA in Psychology from the University of North Carolina (1988), a master’s degree (PsyM) in Clinical Psychology from Pepperdine University (1991), and a PhD in Educational Psychology from the University of Southern California (1996); in 2009 she earned another master’s degree (MEd) in Epidemiology from Stanford University.[11] Wow – that’s impressive. Why is she not familiar with the details of a polygraph test and clueless about the meaning of the word “exculpatory”? Not to mention the fact that she supposedly did not know how to contact the US Senate.

Handwritten statement by Christine Blasey Ford, as used for her polygraph exam.

Efforts have been made to interpret Ford’s body language and handwriting. Analysis of her performance at the Senate hearings suggests that she was acting the part of a vulnerable, confused child, feigning nervousness, and playing the “terrified” victim. One does not need a professional analyst to spell this out – anyone paying attention will have noticed her discrepant behavior. Her handwriting is odd as well – with errors and strike-throughs – and traits that are said to indicate an addictive personality and lack of self esteem.

Not only that, her memory is rather poor for an academic. Most obviously, she does not remember when or where her alleged assault took place, or how she got to the party and home again, but that was a long time ago.[12] However, she is also foggy on when she took the polygraph test, despite the fact that she had just come from her grandmother’s funeral – she either took the test on that very day or maybe it was the following day – just not sure.[13] She didn’t know who paid for her polygraph test. And, by the way, she wasn’t sure if she gave The Washington Post her therapist’s notes. Are these memory lapses, or is she lying?

In a blatant lie, which was brought out in her questioning by prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, Ford told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she was too afraid to fly east for the hearings, despite the fact that she has been flying all over the country – indeed the world – continually, as she had to admit.[14] If she lied about this, was she lying about her allegations of assault? And was the attempted rape she has described, and from which she escaped, enough to traumatize her for the following 36 years, leaving her so claustrophobic that she needed a house with two front doors? Those who have actually been raped, and I am one of them, tend not to spend the rest of their lives paralyzed as “victims” but get on with things – in a way that Ford has oddly been unable to do. Except for somehow getting a BA, two master’s degrees, a PhD, holding several professional positions, and publishing widely, overcoming all odds no doubt.[15]


The ex-boyfriend

New light was thrown on the matter by a former boyfriend, who said he dated Ford and even lived with her over a period of six years (1992‒1998). His statement of October 2, 2018, was obtained by Fox News and posted on Twitter the same day. The ex-boyfriend (name redacted but later identified as Brian Merrick[16]) wrote that during his time with Ford she never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh or said that she had been the victim of a sexual assault. She had no fear of flying and in fact flew with him around the Hawaiian Islands in a propeller plane. She “never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit.” And a year after they broke up, she charged $600 on their joint credit card, from which she had been removed.

Statement of Brian Merrick, ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, disputing details of her sworn testimony.

But that’s not all. Merrick stated that Ford had helped her best friend, Monica L. McLean, prepare for a polygraph test, which he had witnessed.[17] During questioning by Rachel Mitchell, Ford said she had never had discussions with anyone besides her attorneys on how to take a polygraph. The following day, McLean denied the account, saying that Ford had never helped her prepare for a polygraph test.[18] Indeed, Monica McLean, former FBI agent, would not have wanted to admit that she was coached, if she was.[19]

At any rate, the fact that Ford passed a polygraph test says nothing about her credibility, which is why the tests are not admissible in court. Polygraph tests are notoriously unreliable and can be “beaten” by those in the know.[20] Ford was apparently one such expert, having published on the use of hypnosis and “psychoeducation” as treatment therapies, indicating her interest in the use of hypnosis to assist in memory retrieval and to create artificial situations in order to affect emotions.[21] Add to this her alleged connections to the CIA, through the internship program that she oversees at Stanford University and also through her father, Ralph G. Blasey, Jr., who worked for a CIA black-budget bank – charges that the “fact-checker” Snopes lists as “false.”[22]




Protesters on Capitol Hill before the hearings. Image: Associated Press.

Tied in closely is the #MeToo movement, which has resonated with women worldwide, for good reason. However, a large cadre of left-leaning supporters now insists that we “believe” the victim, women, Ford, etc., because of course the victim is telling the truth.[23]  During the hearings, scores of protesters appeared in support of Ford, carrying banners reading “Believe Survivors” or wearing t-shirts and buttons with “Believe Women” and “I Believe Christine Blasey Ford,” while some wrote “I believe” on the palms of their hands, for some indiscernible reason. A woman claiming to be a victim of assault may indeed be telling the truth, but she may also be making a false accusation.

#MeToo has been hijacked and is now a “color revolution” – or perhaps it was from the start. Like the Arab Spring, the Rose/Tulip/Orange revolutions, and the “Occupy,” “Black Lives Matter,” and “Resist” movements in the USA, #MeToo is such an engineered campaign.[24] So-called color revolutions worldwide are financed by deep state entities to stoke and capitalize on the distress of repressed populations (in this case, women) to create chaos through protest and divide-and-conquer tactics in order to advance the objectives of those at the top. The driving force behind color revolutions is now social media, and appropriately we have #BelieveSurvivors and #BelieveChristine on Twitter.

Graphic for #BelieveChristine. Image: Planned Parenthood.

The graphic meme is the raised hand with clenched fist, which has migrated from the Middle East and Eastern Europe to #DisruptJ20 for Trump’s inauguration – and on to #BelieveChristine. The special tactic of #MeToo activists is to take down those who have been accused but denied due process, pitting women against men and subverting the presumption of innocence. Most of the press has marched to this tune in lock step. As The New York Times cautions, “Women are watching.”[25]


Political circus

Not coincidentally, Ford’s lawyer Debra Katz is a NeverTrumper, a “Resist” protester who herself sports a shirt with the clenched fist of the color revolution.[26] As learned from the hearings, Katz and her colleague Michael Bromwich both worked for Ford pro bono, and they paid for her polygraph test. We also learned that Senator Dianne Feinstein recommended the Katz firm to Ford as counsel. Just who organized this impressive effort? And who paid for it? That remains to be seen, although Katz is Vice Chair of the Board of the Project on Government Oversight, which has received Soros funding.[27] Bromwich resigned from his law firm in order to join Ford’s legal team.[28] He had recently represented Andrew McCabe after his firing by Jeff Sessions, helping raise money for McCabe’s legal fees from a crowdfunding campaign.[29]

Speaking of which, Christine Ford has or had several GoFundMe campaigns in her name, as alluded to in her testimony. As of this writing, these have raised $31,000 to establish an academic chair in her name, $34,190 for a Christine Blasey Ford endowment to establish research funding “into the prevention of violence against women and into ending gun violence,” $57,162 for newspaper ads supporting Ford, and $857,592 for Ford directly. As she had no legal fees, one wonders why she needed this financial support. Meanwhile, Kavanaugh was not far behind, with more than $600,000 pledged in GoFundMe campaigns. According to Market Watch, more than 42 GoFundMe pages mentioning Kavanaugh or Ford were started in the wake of the Senate proceedings, some of them “satirical,” such as the “Start a Brett Kavanaugh Beer!” campaign, which raised $38 (now listed as $0) toward its $100,000 goal.[30] Kavanaugh has since declined the GoFundMe contributions; Ford accepted hers.

Christine Blasey Ford with lawyers Debra Katz (left) and Michael Bromwich (right) with Monica McLean looking on. Image: C-Span.

Other shenanigans involve Monica McLean, who attended the Senate hearings in support of Ford. Ford wrote her letter to Dianne Feinstein in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, where, coincidentally, McLean has a residence.[31] So one might wonder whether the two wrote the letter together, or consulted about its contents, although Ford testified that she wrote it herself. Meanwhile, three people were named by Ford as attending the 1982 party where Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her: Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser, none of whom corroborated her claim. It has now developed that Leland Keyser was pressured into changing her story by none other than Monica McLean, as revealed to the FBI and reported by The Wall Street Journal.[32] Ford shot back at Keyser saying, “Leland has significant health challenges, and I’m happy that she’s focusing on herself and getting the health treatment that she needs, and she let me know that she needed her lawyer to take care of this for her…”

Although Ford’s story is obviously full of holes, all was not lost for Kavanaugh’s detractors. Two other women joined the team with unsubstantiated allegations, as reported breathlessly by the corporate media: Deborah Ramirez[33] and Julie Swetnick,[34] the latter represented by Michael Avenatti, aka “Creepy Porn Lawyer,” whose most famous client was Stephanie Clifford, aka “Stormy Daniels,” hailed by the press as a “feminist hero.”[35] Swetnick’s claims were so unbelievable that they were widely ridiculed, and Avenatti, once a media darling, is now “radioactive.” And to top it off, Catland Books in Brooklyn hosted a public hex on Brett Kavanaugh on October 20 – see #HexKavanaugh on Twitter.[36] With this joyless circus, the Left has shot itself in the foot, or, as a recent Times editorial put it, “American liberalism has pierced its own tongue.”[37] Many Democrats have chosen to #WalkAway. And Brett Kavanaugh, his reputation in shreds, now sits on the Supreme Court.


Delay and discredit

After 16 days of meetings with individual US Senators (July 10‒August 23) and five days of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings (September 4‒7 and 27), only the last day seemed to count. Already on the first day of the hearings, Democrats called for a delay in the proceedings. On September 5‒6, Kavanaugh was asked about his political philosophy on certain issues as well as such things as Trump’s tweets about the judiciary; on September 7 outside witnesses were allowed to testify, including John Dean and Aalayah Eastmond, alleged survivor of the alleged shooting in Parkland, FL.[38] Protests disrupted the proceedings throughout.

“Survivor” Aalayah Eastmond testifies on September 7, 2018. Image: Associated Press.

Then on September 12, The Intercept revealed the existence of a letter held by Dianne Feinstein, describing “an incident” involving Kavanaugh and a woman, not naming the subject but only her lawyer, Debra Katz.[39] This was Ford’s letter, which was dated July 30 and received by Feinstein shortly thereafter. On the pretext of protecting Ford’s anonymity, Feinstein held the letter back until just before the scheduled vote; this was seen by many as an effort to extend the proceedings and eventually derail the nomination process. On September 16, The Washington Post published Ford’s account.[40] A final day of hearings was then scheduled for September 27, in order for Ford to testify and Kavanaugh to answer her allegations.

In one last attempt to discredit the nominee, Democrats on the comittee avoided all substantive discussion and went for the jugular. While Ford was treated with fawning courtesy, Kavanaugh was bullied and browbeaten. Dispensing with any pretense to the dignity of their office, the Dems threw the book at Kavanaugh – his high school yearbook. In over two hours of questioning, the Democrats pressed the judge on the meaning of Keg City Club, Devil’s Triangle, Beach Week Ralph Club, and Renate Alumnius/Alumni.[41] Some Republicans addressed more serious issues, including Lindsey Graham with his questioning on the Law of Armed Conflict, although the object of this interchange was not widely understood by the public.[42]

In her speech following the hearings, Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins reported on the results of her own extensive interrogation of Kavanaugh regarding his judicial philosophy.[43] She determined that Kavanaugh would not vote to eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions. That he has been “unequivocal in his belief that no President is above the law.” And that he would not seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. She decried the politically charged atmosphere surrounding Kavanaugh’s nomination, and she ended by saying she would vote to confirm him to the Supreme Court. As punishment, Democratic donors have organized a multimillion-dollar fund-raising campaign to defeat Collins should she run in 2020.[44]


The debate we didn’t have

Many Americans felt cheated: “There was no debate when we needed one.” Instead of a broad inquiry into Kavanaugh’s judicial record, we heard about claims that he was a teenage alcoholic and “serial rapist.” One would want him to state his views on the separation of powers and the protection of civil liberties. In the words of Paul Craig Roberts:

Can the Executive branch spy on citizens without warrants and cause, despite laws and constitutional prohibition to the contrary? Can the executive branch detain citizens indefinitely despite habeas corpus, despite the US Constitution’s prohibition? Can the Executive branch kill US citizens without due process of law, despite the US Constitution’s prohibition? Dick Cheney and University of California law professor John Yoo say “yes the President can.”[45]

What are Kavanaugh’s thoughts on the “War on Terror,” besides his belief that we are now at war? After 9/11, “Congress passed the authorization for use of military force, which is still in effect,” as he told Lindsey Graham. What are his thoughts about Graham’s extended questioning on the Law of Armed Conflict and insistence that “you do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy” and “American citizens who collaborate with the enemy are considered enemy combatants”? And there is much more we would have liked to know.[46]

Kavanaugh was at the White House on 9/11, serving as an associate to White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales. He was evacuated after the Twin Towers were “hit” along with his future wife, Ashley, who was President Bush’s personal aide at the time. Kavanaugh was involved in the drafting of the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act, and is credited with the line, “…the new law will update laws authorizing government surveillance,” although citizens are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, and this is not subject to “update.” In correspondence obtained through a Freedom of Information Act Request, Kavanaugh referred to the PATRIOT Act as a “measured, careful, responsible, and constitutional approach.”[47]

Brett Kavanaugh at the White House with Alberto Gonzalez and George Bush in an undated photo. Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Then there are the “torture memos” of 2002: two documents drafted by Jay Bybee and a letter from John Yoo to Alberto Gonzales, along with other communications issued under the Bush administration, including a notorious DOD memo signed by Donald Rumsfeld. At this time, Kavanaugh was serving as an associate to Alberto Gonzalez, although he has denied any knowledge of these memos before their public release in 2004. In the opinion of critics, this is considered unlikely.

A meeting was held at the White House in 2002 regarding the assertion by the Bush administration that it could label an American citizen an “enemy combatant” at its discretion, and the question of whether or not this would be accepted by the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh was reportedly at that meeting, and took part in the discussion, although in 2006 he claimed he did not. Democrats had discovered this apparent discrepancy and sought to use it to question his credibility. This is the reason for Lindsey Graham’s pointed questioning, which sought to establish precedent prior to 9/11 on the issue of Americans classified as “enemy combatants.” Kavanaugh has insisted, “I told the whole truth, the whole truth in my prior testimony. I was not read into that program.”[48]

These issues call into question the War on Terror itself. Kavanaugh appears to be behind it, as well as the PATRIOT Act and other unconstitutional policies enacted in the wake of 9/11 to bolster the US Security State. One might argue that these topics were avoided by Senators on the Judiciary Committee, since many of them were involved. In 2001, the only Senator who voted against the PATRIOT Act was Russ Feingold; only 10 Senators voted against the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2006.[49] And a majority of Senators voted for the USA Freedom Act of 2015 reauthorizing provisions of the 2001 PATRIOT Act. Of those who voted on the bill in 2015, all current Democratic senators (40) voted YES; 12 Republicans voted YES, as did one Independent (Bernie Sanders). Most Republicans voted NO (35), along with one Independent (Angus King).

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings were a bogus distraction from such major questions. They generated considerable sympathy for Kavanaugh as a victim of slander, although this was not the intended result, but they failed to hold him fully accountable.


Credible or complicit?

With the evidence in, we may conclude as follows. This charade was a scheme by the Democrats to delay and derail the Kavanaugh nomination. Although they did not succeed, they inflicted extensive damage. Ariel Dumas, a writer for Stephen Colbert’s Late Show, tweeted, “Whatever happens, I’m just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life.”[50]

“He said, she said” – only one of them was telling the truth. Kavanaugh’s testimony was much more believable, with the possible exception of how much beer he drank as a teenager. Ford’s allegations, however, were unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, and even denied by the witnesses she named. Many details were unremembered, unclear, or illogical, and several of her statements were shown to be false. Senator Richard Blumenthal invoked falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, “false in one thing, false in everything,” in order to discredit Kavanaugh. This was rich, considering Blumenthal’s lies about his (non)service in Vietnam.[51] According to this principle, it was not Kavanaugh but Ford who was discredited. Her testimony did not hold up. As Rachel Mitchell concluded:

A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them…I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

A new book by Ryan Lovelace reports that Debra Katz has admitted that Ford came forward with her allegations, in part, to taint Kavanaugh and undermine his authority should he support any alteration of Roe v. Wade. This contradicts Ford’s insistence that she was merely trying to be helpful and do her civic duty. A video clip of Katz confirms that she did indeed say the following:

…I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the Court…he will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important; it is important that we know, and that was part of what motivated Christine.[52]

Whether wittingly or not, Christine Blasey Ford was complicit in the Democratic Party’s plan to bring down Brett Kavanaugh. In view of the evidence, she and her lawyers appear to have been deeply involved in the process.


VIVIAN LEE is the nom-de-plume of a tenured professor at an east coast university. A life-long advocate for the rights of women, she is a registered Democrat who has walked away.


The original version of this article was published at and; a revised version was prepared for a volume on the Kavanaugh hearings edited by James Fetzer and published by Moon Rock Books (forthcoming). The article posted here is an updated revision.



[1] An early version of this article appeared on September 29, 2018, at Memory Hole Blog.

[2] The New York Times, September 27, 2018.

[3] “How Christine Blasey Ford’s Vulnerability Shaped Her Credibility.” CNBC, September 28, 2018.

[4] The Boston Globe, September 27, 2018.

[5] “What Makes Christine Blasey Ford Credible.” Slate, September 27, 2018.

[6] “Trump Calls Christine Blasey Ford a ‘Very Credible’ Witness.”

[7] The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, September 25, 2018.

[8] MSNBC, September 27, 2018.

[9] “Brett Kavanaugh Barely Controls His Rage in Combative Testimony Denying Sexual Assault Allegations.” Democracy Now! September 28, 2018.

[10] “Watch Christine Blasey Ford Contradict Herself Again, Again, and Again.” Infowars, September 27, 2018.

[11] “Christine Blasey Ford’s Body Language.” Fellowship of the Minds, September 28, 2018.

[12] The many things Ford did not remember are outlined in the memorandum that Rachel Mitchell submitted to the Senate Republicans regarding her analysis of Ford’s allegations.

[13] “‘She Doesn’t Know’? Christine Blasey Ford Just Took a Torch to the Infamous Polygraph Test.”

[14] “Christine Blasey Ford Says She Flies Frequently, Despite Fear of Flying.” Washington Examiner, September 27, 2018.


[16] “Revealed: The Man Accusing Blasey Ford of Lying about Polygraphs.” The Daily Caller, October 3, 2018.

[17] “Christine Blasey Ford Ex-boyfriend Says She Helped Friend Prep for Potential Polygraph; Grassley Sounds Alarm.” Fox News, October 2 (updated October 3), 2018.

[18] “Christine Ford’s Friend Denies Being Helped on Polygraph, Fires Back at New Claims.” Fox News, October 3, 2018.

[19] “Press Release from DOJ Regarding”

[20] “How To Beat a Polygraph Test.” The New York Times, April 10, 2015.

[21] Lisa Butler, Lynn Waelde, Christine Blasey, et al., “Meditation with Yoga, Group Therapy with Hypnosis, and Psychoeducation for Long-term Depressed Mood: A Randomized Pilot Trial.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 64, no. 7 (2008): 806‒820. The authors are aware of the use of hypnosis to assist in the retrieval of memories and to “modulate” the associated emotions, and they are interested in how this and other techniques can be used to affect clinical depression.

[22] “Christine Blasey Ford’s Deep Ties to the CIA Uncovered.” State of the Nation, September 29, 2018. “Wayne Madsen: Is a CIA Operation.” Fellowship of the Minds, December 16, 2016.

[23]Wall Street Journal: The New Liberal Standard – Presumed Guilty!”

[24] James Tracy, “Media Disinformation and the ‘Arab Spring’ Color Revolutions.” Global Research, April 15, 2012. Michel Chossudovsky, “‘Color Revolution’ against Donald Trump.” Global Research, January 18, 2017. Larry Chin, “Violent ‘Color Revolution’ in America? Attempted Overthrow of Trump? Threatens to Shred Fabric of American Society.” Global Research, October 25, 2017.

[25] “Women Are Watching, Which Should Make Republican Lawmakers Very, Very Nervous.” The New York Times, September 28, 2018.

[26] “Christine Ford’s Unhinged Attorney Is Wearing Radical Socialist Power Fist T-shirt at Anti-Trump Protest.” The Gateway Pundit, September 22, 2018.


[28] “Christine Blasey Ford Lawyer Michael Bromwich Resigned from His Law Firm Because Partners Objected to His Decision To Represent Her.” Slate, September 27, 2018.

[29] “Did a K Street Firm Help Launch the Andrew McCabe GoFundMe That’s Raised $550,000 from the #Resistance?” Slate, April 2, 2018.

[30] “Dueling GoFundMe Pages Raise More Than $500K Each for Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford.” Market Watch, October 8, 2018.

[31] “Read Christine Blasey Ford’s Full Unredacted Letter Accusing Brett Kavanaugh of Sexual Assault.” Newsweek, September 24, 2018.

[32] “Friend of Dr. Ford Felt Pressure To Revisit Statement.” The Wall Street Journal, October 5, 2018.

[33] “In a Culture of Privilege and Alcohol at Yale, Her World Converged with Kavanaugh’s.” The New York Times, September 25, 2018. Ramirez’s story has surfaced again, with a recent article in The New York Times reporting that a witness, Max Stier, has alleged that he saw Kavanaugh expose himself at another Yale dorm party. According to The Times, Stier says he notified the FBI, but they did not choose to investigate. The Gateway Pundit points out that Ramirez’s story has been thoroughly “debunked” and Stier’s allegations are unsubstantiated. Not only are Stier’s allegations unsubstantiated, but the “victim” has no recollection of the incident in question. However, such facts are irrelevant in the run-up to the 2020 election. Based on the “newest revelations,” several of the Democrats running for President, including Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, and Julian Castro, have called for Kavanaugh’s “impeachment.”

[34] “Julie Swetnick Is Third Woman To Accuse Brett Kavanaugh of Sexual Misconduct.” The New York Times, September 26, 2018.

[35] “Stormy Daniels, Feminist Hero.” The New York Times, August 24, 2018.

[36] “Brooklyn Witches Plan To Put a Hex on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.” Time, October 14, 2018. “Watch Live – Witches Cast Hex on Brett Kavanaugh.” Breitbart, October 20, 2018. For live coverage of the ritual by CBS, see Due to the popularity of the event, to accommodate additional participants, a second hex was scheduled for November 3. To counter the effect (if any), renowned Catholic exorcist Father Gary Thomas held mass for Kavanaugh and was joined by other Christians in spiritual intercession on his behalf. The Daily Caller, October 18, 2018.

[37] “Liberalism Pierces Its Tongue, Again.” The New York Times, October 13, 2018.

[38] “Parkland Shooting Survivor Gives Powerful Testimony at Kavanaugh Hearings.” USA Today, September 7, 2018.

[39] “Dianne Feinstein Withholding Brett Kavanaugh Document from Fellow Judiciary Committee Democrats.” The Intercept, September 12, 2018.

[40] “California Professor, Writer of Confidential Brett Kavanaugh Letter, Speaks Out about Her Allegation of Sexual Assault.” The Washington Post, September 16, 2018.

[41] “Kavanaugh’s Yearbook Page Is ‘Horrible, Hurtful’ to a Woman It Named.” The New York Times, September 24, 2018.


[43] “Read Susan Collins’s Speech Declaring Support for Brett Kavanaugh.” The New York Times, October 5, 2018.

[44] “Donors Are Organizing a Multimillion-Dollar Effort To Defeat Susan Collins in 2020.” Huffington Post, October 5, 2018.

[45] Paul Craig Roberts, “There Was No Debate When We Needed One.”

[46] “What Brett Kavanaugh Must Be Asked about Torture, Guantanamo, and Mass Surveillance.” The New Yorker, July 24, 2018.

[47] “The Constitutional Reasons To Oppose Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court.” Foundation for Economic Education, October 1, 2018.

[48] “Democrats Are Trying To Use Kavanaugh’s 2006 Confirmation Hearing Testimony against Him.” Vox, September 5, 2018.

[49] In 2001, 66 members of the House of Representatives voted against the PATRIOT Act; 138 members of the House voted against the reauthorization in 2006.

[50] “Stephen Colbert ‘Late Show’ writer: ‘I’m Just Glad We Ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s Life.’” Fox News, October 7, 2018.

[51] “Cotton to Blumenthal: You Don’t Have Credibility To Question Kavanaugh.” The Hill, September 27, 2018.

[52] Ryan Lovelace, Search and Destroy: Inside the Campaign against Brett Kavanaugh. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2019, p. 143. Katz was speaking at the University of Baltimore’s 11th Feminist Legal Theory Conference in April 2019.


(Visited 125 times, 1 visits today)
Please follow and like us: